Kochar v. Walmart, Inc.

Background

The named plaintiffs alleged that Walmart marketed baby food as healthy while the food allegedly contained excessive levels of non-naturally occurring heavy metals. They alleged that they paid a premium for the products because of the marketing representations. They also alleged that they would be willing to buy Walmart’s baby food again but would not be able to trust the representations.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the alleged premium paid for the baby food plausibly constituted economic injury. That injury was sufficient at the pleading stage to establish Article III standing—the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have a concrete injury that can be addressed by a court.

The court also concluded that the named plaintiffs plausibly had standing to seek injunctive relief, meaning a court order requiring or prohibiting future conduct. Their alleged willingness to purchase the products again, combined with their alleged inability to trust Walmart’s marketing, supported that conclusion.

The court found that the consolidated complaint satisfied Rules 8 and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a complaint to provide a sufficient statement of the claim, while Rule 9(b) requires fraud-based allegations to be stated with particularity. The court specifically declined to dismiss the unjust-enrichment and quasi-contract claim at the pleading stage. It noted that Walmart could ask to revisit that issue on summary judgment if discovery showed that the claim conflicted with the evidentiary record.

Disposition

The court denied Walmart’s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The opinion does not state that any claim was dismissed or identify all claims in the consolidated complaint.